1. In this intra-court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 25th January, 2011 passed in WP No.16620/2010 by the learned Single Judge, by which, a show cause notice dated 5.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Director as contemplated under Section 7(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as `Act') pertaining to the violation of provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has been quashed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly are stated that the respondent was one of the directors of M/s.Entel (Pvt.) Limited. A show cause notice dated 5.2.2010 was issued to the respondent, by which, the respondent was asked as to why the proceedings as contemplated under Section 13(1) of thefor violation of Section 7(1) of theshould not be initiated against the respondent. The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid order in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge inter-alia on the ground that the show cause notice is per se without jurisdiction as the same has been quashed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25th January, 2011.

3. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the non-realisation of the expiry period is a continuing offence and is in the contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that an alternative remedy was available to the respondent and therefore no interference in the matter was called for.

5. On the otherhand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the records.

7. It is well settled in law that this Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction, in spite of the availability of the alternative remedy, when it is shown that the impugned order/show cause notice [see: Whirlpool Corporation -vs- Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/1998/1044] and in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another -vs- Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 [LQ/SC/2002/1378] ].

8. The Act comes into force w.e.f. 1.6.2000. Section 49(3) of thereads as under:

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall take cognizance offence under the repealed Act and no adjudicating officer shall take notice of any contravention under section 51 of the repealed Act after expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act."

9. In the instant case, it is evidence that an adjudicating officer shall not take any notice of any contravention under Section 51 of the repealed Act after expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act. It is not in dispute that the proceeding was initiated against the respondent in respect of an offence under the repealed Act namely, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The notice was issued to the respondent on 5.2.2010. The said show cause notice is therefore, per se without jurisdiction and has been issued in violation of the bar contained in Section 49(3) of the. The impugned show cause notice has therefore rightly been held to be without jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. The show cause notice is per se jurisdiction. Therefore, the question of relegating the respondent to alternative remedy does not arise.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed.